After years of circling the drain, the Somerset Generating Station will close on February 15, 2020. Since its railroad line will no longer be necessary, a 15 mile Buffalo, Lockport, and Olcott Beach (BL&OB) rail trail should take its place!
Opened in 1984, Somerset Generating Station was a landmark of my childhood. Its tall smokestack would billow puffy white exhaust, always drifting with the wind off of the lake and we would often see it from Olcott while getting popcorn. My dad told me that it was one of the more efficient plants worldwide and most of the white exhaust was steam. Unfortunately, the pollutants were still in the steam which will not be missed. Economics finally caught up and next year, it will be the last coal power plant to close in New York State.
In the 1960's and 70's, the lakefront site was eyed for a nuclear plant but only one was built further down the lake in Oswego. By the late 1970's though, nuclear plant construction stopped and instead, a coal plant was built. Coal power plants require too much coal to be delivered by truck so some old railroad track was reactivated. Buffalo, Lockport and Olcott Beach Railway (BL&OB) was built around the turn of the century as an interurban electrified line to connect Lockport and points south to Olcott Beach. A favorite summer destination in itself, people could also transfer to a steamship to Toronto. By 1937, passenger volumes had declined and the line was abandoned for the next 46 years.
In 1983, the former BL&OB line was rebuilt north of Lockport, renamed the Somerset Railroad, and connected to a short section of the New York Central's abandoned "Hojack" line. A large curving concrete bridge was built over Eighteen Mile Creek and several bridges grade separated the line from some of the busier roads. A spur connected the line to the power plant. The Someret Railroad is owned by CSX and uses their locomotives to pull the coal trains as Somerset has no locomotives or crews of their own. There are several small chemical plants and other industry served by spurs in Lowertown Lockport. A data center is proposed to replace the plant and will not need freight rail service. North of Old Niagara Rd, there are no other industries on the line which makes that 15-mile section perfect for conversion to rail trail since without the power plants or other industries along the line, CSX will likely abandon it after the power plant clean up.
Costs of constructing the rail trail are not exorbitant and would be eligible for grant funding. First, the County should acquire the line north of Lockport from CSX. Then, the rails can be removed and sold for a profit while the ties will have to be recycled for a net loss as recycling costs have climbed in recent years. The County could then chose a trail paving material, fine dust gravel being the cheapest but asphalt being more expensive and longer-lasting. The County could also construct several parking lots to increase access by leasing or buying land from adjacent owners or constructing narrow parking lots on the former railroad right of way.
While some parts of the County have trail access, especially communities on the canal, Newfane and Olcott do not. The trail terminus in Lockport would be a short ride away from the Erie Canalway Trail on low volume streets, expanding the number of potential users. Rail trails are popular community amenities nationwide and locally too. This trail's potential connection to the lake would attract lots of users and quickly become a popular community amenity. The County Parks Department, the County Legislature, and local jurisdictions should begin the planning process to acquire the railroad right of way from CSX and begin applying for grants. The BL&OB Rail Trail could be a gem of the community, connecting residents to Lake Ontario and beyond, and help the County recover from the loss of its largest taxpayer, the Somerset Generating Station.
Friday, November 29, 2019
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Boosting Buffalo Metro Rail
While New York City has one of the largest subways in the world, Buffalo’s Metro Rail has never attracted the number of riders it expected. Running more service could attract more riders at a low, incremental cost.
For many years, US transit agencies have run a lot of service at rush hour and comparatively little outside of rush hour. The 9 am to 5 pm commuter has been king since the 1950’s when most private transit companies were purchased by local governments. And that approach has attracted generations of commuter riders. But in many countries, people going to and from work are only part of their ridership. Instead, they run frequent service at all hours to attract other trips such as people running errands, visiting friends and family, or going out on the town. Frequent service means that people traveling outside of rush hour do not have to wait for a train or even check schedules. In fact in Moscow, the Metro authorities do not even publish schedules and instead tell their drivers to follow the train in front of them by 1.5-3 minutes. Running more service is a key reason by other countries attract far more riders than their US counterparts.
Buffalo Metro Rail runs just 4 trains per hour in off-peak hours and 6 during rush hour. Still, the system attracts about 13,700 riders per weekday and while many have criticized its short length and lack of development near many stations, it’s per-mile ridership is reasonably good compared to US other systems. The low level of frequency requires just 6 trainsets for service, at peak hours 18 railcars out of 27 in its fleet. Typically, three cars are undergoing maintenance and one serves as a spare so NFTA could run up to 23 cars but rarely does except for special events. By running less service, Metro Rail is in effect not using its most expensive assets to its full potential.
Adding more service would attract more riders because waiting times would be significantly reduced and the transfer penalty or time cost of transferring from a bus and waiting for the next Metro Rail train would also decline, both of which make the service more attractive for riders. Instead of waiting an average of 5 minutes at rush hour and 7.5 minutes midday, more frequent service would reduce that time to an average of 3 minutes.
I propose running 10 trains per hour throughout the entire day, using 5 three-car train sets and 4 two-car trainsets which retains the current spare and maintenance ratio of 4 to 27. Increased use of the cars will likely increase wear and tear costs but the cars were recently rehabbed and are getting close to the end of their useful lives, requiring replacement in the next decade or so. See sample schedule.
While Metro Rail would not need to immediately buy new trainsets to run additional service, the key cost increase would be labor. Working with the train driver's union to increase the number of segments each driver operates during their shift could lower the per hour operating cost while still requiring more drivers than today. In addition, driver productivity is increased because train drivers will have shorter times to turn around a train, in some cases as lower as 3 minutes compared to 15-20 minutes today. Funding this dramatic service increase will certainly increase operating costs but this will be offset by increased fare revenue from additional passengers.
With planning for an expansion to the suburbs underway, it will be helpful for authorities to demonstrate increased ridership through better use of existing assets. Why not run more Metro Rail trains?
For many years, US transit agencies have run a lot of service at rush hour and comparatively little outside of rush hour. The 9 am to 5 pm commuter has been king since the 1950’s when most private transit companies were purchased by local governments. And that approach has attracted generations of commuter riders. But in many countries, people going to and from work are only part of their ridership. Instead, they run frequent service at all hours to attract other trips such as people running errands, visiting friends and family, or going out on the town. Frequent service means that people traveling outside of rush hour do not have to wait for a train or even check schedules. In fact in Moscow, the Metro authorities do not even publish schedules and instead tell their drivers to follow the train in front of them by 1.5-3 minutes. Running more service is a key reason by other countries attract far more riders than their US counterparts.
 |
| From David Wilson, 20150827 61 NFTA Light Rail @ Fountain Plaza |
Buffalo Metro Rail runs just 4 trains per hour in off-peak hours and 6 during rush hour. Still, the system attracts about 13,700 riders per weekday and while many have criticized its short length and lack of development near many stations, it’s per-mile ridership is reasonably good compared to US other systems. The low level of frequency requires just 6 trainsets for service, at peak hours 18 railcars out of 27 in its fleet. Typically, three cars are undergoing maintenance and one serves as a spare so NFTA could run up to 23 cars but rarely does except for special events. By running less service, Metro Rail is in effect not using its most expensive assets to its full potential.
Adding more service would attract more riders because waiting times would be significantly reduced and the transfer penalty or time cost of transferring from a bus and waiting for the next Metro Rail train would also decline, both of which make the service more attractive for riders. Instead of waiting an average of 5 minutes at rush hour and 7.5 minutes midday, more frequent service would reduce that time to an average of 3 minutes.
I propose running 10 trains per hour throughout the entire day, using 5 three-car train sets and 4 two-car trainsets which retains the current spare and maintenance ratio of 4 to 27. Increased use of the cars will likely increase wear and tear costs but the cars were recently rehabbed and are getting close to the end of their useful lives, requiring replacement in the next decade or so. See sample schedule.
While Metro Rail would not need to immediately buy new trainsets to run additional service, the key cost increase would be labor. Working with the train driver's union to increase the number of segments each driver operates during their shift could lower the per hour operating cost while still requiring more drivers than today. In addition, driver productivity is increased because train drivers will have shorter times to turn around a train, in some cases as lower as 3 minutes compared to 15-20 minutes today. Funding this dramatic service increase will certainly increase operating costs but this will be offset by increased fare revenue from additional passengers.
With planning for an expansion to the suburbs underway, it will be helpful for authorities to demonstrate increased ridership through better use of existing assets. Why not run more Metro Rail trains?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)